2 ms·
I think you're partially right about the reasons (the other half of the equation simply being the momentum of Python 2 efforts), but I think your last clause ("
by mangeletti 11y ago
I think you're partially right about the reasons (the other half of the equation simply being the momentum of Python 2 efforts), but I think your last clause ("it's just useless") is incorrect.
I can tell you for 100% certain that, if a project of mine could run on a version of "Python" that was even twice as fast, I would switch immediately, because 6 application servers could become 3. If the gains are even greater, that's tremendous.
It's not just scientific computing that benefits, and in fact, a lot of the scientific / numerical analysis done in Python is really done in C / C ++ anyway (think Numpy, et al which delegate to compiled code for much of their expensive operations).
- Nullabillity 11y agoPyPy isn't useless, Python 3 is.
- srean 11y agoI think it comes down to the question how much funding would such folks be able to raise to support that effort. It is my understanding that PyPy is quite resource starved.